Archive | July 1st, 2018

Zionist puppet British Air Force Bombed Syrian Forces


Zionist British Royal Air Force targeted Syrian forces after a fight between coalition and pro-Assad forces broke out in the desert on the border between Jordan, Syria and Iraq.

Zionist puppet British Royal Airforce directly targeted Syrian forces near the border with Iraq and Jordan last month, The Sunday Times reports. One Syrian army officer was killed and seven others were injured.

The attack took place a month ago, when a RAF Typhoon fighter jet dropped a 500lb Paveway IV bomb on Syrian forces during a firefight near Zionist British and American Special Forces base in the desert near al-Tanf on the Jordanian-Iraqi border. The bomb was dropped in response to the regime forces’ attempt to approach the base. The base is used to train a Syrian rebel group fighting ISIS, Maghawir al-Thowra (MaT).

The base is surrounded by a 34-mile “deconfliction zone,” which Syrian militias have been instructed by the U.S. to stay out of.

This is the first time that the British military bombed Syrian forces since it took part in a series of airstrikes in Syria with the Western Coalition in April, in response to Assad’s reported use of chemical weapons against civilians in rebel-held territories.

In a separate incident, the Sunday Times reported that a £44 million transport aircraft has been seriously damaged in an accident in the Syrian desert. The damage was caused after a heavy landing during a covert mission. The aircraft, a C-130J Hercules, was used by the Zionist British SAS (Special Forces) in special missions in Iraq and Syria.

There have been various scuffles between the coalition forces and the Syrian Forces which control the border area.

On June 21, several Maghawir al-Thowra combatants and coalition “consultants” fell under fire from from outside the zone. The firing came from an area not known to be under ISIS control, according to the Zionist British Ministry of Defense.

The forces withdrew in order to defuse the situation, but one position persisted in firing upon them, said the Ministry statement.

It said the retaliatory strike was “wholly proportionate,” but refused to disclose the identity of the forces attacked.

Maghawir al-Thowra is a rebel group compromising of defectors of the Syrian Arab Army, and the remnants of other rebel groups established in the Syrian Civil War.

Posted in USA, Syria, UKComments Off on Zionist puppet British Air Force Bombed Syrian Forces

What Would Help the Peace Process in Korea?

By David William Pear | American Herald Tribune 

It looks like peace is breaking out in Korea. The Koreans themselves are moving fast to mend their nation. When paradigm shifts happen they often happen quickly. In just a little over a year the South Korean people demanded the ouster of the corrupt rightwing Park Geun-hye as their president, and a new election replaced her with the liberal human rights lawyer Moon Jae-in.

Moon brought in a new era with the overwhelming support of the South Korean people. Kim Jong-un of North Korea responded likewise. Since the beginning of this year the normalization of relations between the North and the South have been moving fast. U.S. diplomats cannot keep up with it. So let us look into the deep roots of the Korean War and what would help the peace process.

We can start by answering what caused the Korean War. The conventional wisdom is that the war was started by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (i.e. North Korea) on June 25, 1950 when it invaded the Republic of Korea (i.e. South Korea). But the conventional wisdom is wrong. It is like saying that the Vietnam War started when North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam; or asking when did the American Revolution start.

Scholars are coming around to recognizing that the Korean War was a civil war. Bruce Cumings in his book, “Korea’s Place in the Sun: A Modern History”, explains it this way:

“The Korean War did not begin on June 25, 1950, much special pleading and argument to the contrary. If it did not begin then, Kim iI Sung could not have ‘started’ it then, either, but only at some earlier point. As we search backward for that point, we slowly grope toward the truth that civil wars do not start: they come. They originate in multiple causes, with blame enough to go around for everyone—and blame enough to include Americans who thoughtlessly divided Korea and then reestablished the colonial government machinery and the Koreans who served it.”

The Korean War has its roots in the mid 1800’s. There was a scramble for colonies, subjugation and influence in East Asia. The driving force of colonialism was trade. It was a scramble for booty, cheap labor, and markets. The Industrial Revolution and the instability of capitalism caused an excess of production; requiring new markets, and the need for more raw materials to feed the machines. Capitalism must constantly expand trade or growth stops, and the system collapses.

Fortunes were made in trade with Asia: tea, silk, spices, tobacco, sugar, rum, porcelain, cotton, coal, timber, gold and opium. The big powers in Asia were England, France, Dutch, Czarist Russia and the United States of America. Japan got into the game after the U.S. forcefully opened it for trade with the black gunboats of Commodore Matthew Perry in 1854.

The Japanese were quick learners in the ways of Western imperialism. Theodore Roosevelt admired them greatly, and considered them to be a “superior” race of Asians. Racial stereotyping was then common and many Westerners considered Asians to be inferior heathens. It was not uncommon for Asians to view rightly foreigners and Christian missionaries as subversives, and wanted to keep them out.

In 1866 the U.S. armed merchant ship the General Sherman tried to force its way into a Korean port despite protests from Korea that it was not open for business. The Koreans attacked the ship, and when it got stuck on a sandbar they killed all the crew and burned the ship.

In 1871 the U.S. used the General Sherman incident as an excuse to launch an invasion of Korea with the aim of getting an apology and establishing trading relations. The U.S. invasion was a success, it taught the Koreans a lesson, but they still refused to establish trading relations.

Later, fearing subjugation by one colonial power or another, Korea decided to make a deal with what it thought would be the lesser evil, and entered into the Treaty of Peace, Amity, Commerce and Navigation with the U.S. in 1882. Koreans took some comfort that the U.S. was on the other side of the ocean, unlike Japan.  In exchange for giving the U.S. unequal trading rights, the Koreans got a signed treaty of U.S. protection.

The U.S. broke its promise of protection and delivered Korea into the colonial hands of the Japanese with the Taft–Katsura agreement in 1905. Theodore Roosevelt made a secret pact with the Japanese during his mediation of the settlement of the Russo-Japanese War. The secret deal was that Japan got Korea, and the U.S. got a Japanese guarantee of non-interference with its colony in the Philippines. Theodore Roosevelt was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, even though he secretly and cynically double crossed the Koreans.

After World War Two the U.S. denied Korea a chance for independence again.  Instead of liberating Korea, the U.S. was responsible for the division of Korea at the 38th parallel. Russia agreed, and while the Russians ushered in a government of Korean freedom fighters in the North, the U.S. in the South put in place a puppet government of Koreans who had collaborated with the Japanese, and the hated right-wing Korean aristocrats known as Yangban.

In both the north and the south Koreans were ready for self-government. In anticipation of the defeat of the Japanese and liberation, they had set up the Korean People’s Republic with grassroots committees all over the country. The head of the KPR in the South was Yo Un-hyong. Yo was a popular left-leaning nationalist and land reformer. He was assassinated 2 years later by the U.S. backed rightwing puppet government of Syngman Rhee

Even though the Korean people had governed themselves for over a thousand years, the U.S. did not consider them ready for self-government.  At the Yalta Conference in February 1945 Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed that Korea be placed in a trusteeship. He said it would take 40 years before Korea would be ready for self-government.

When U.S. troops docked at the Port of Incheon Korea on September 8, 1945 Roosevelt was dead, and Harry Truman was president. Under Truman the ruse of a trusteeship was dropped. The spoils of war go to the victor and the U.S. set about establishing the southern half of Korea as if it was a new U.S. colony.

The Koreans did not even get to celebrate their first night of liberation in 1945. The U.S. military declared martial law and ordered a curfew for all Koreans. The Japanese colonial administrators were kept in place, and American and Japanese officers partied at the Chosen Hotel in Seoul for several drunken days.

The Japanese administrators, military and police simply put on U.S. Army Military Government (AMG) armbands, kept their rifles and patrolled the streets with fixed bayonets until 1946. Similar scenes were taking place in Vietnam and elsewhere in Asia “liberated” from the Japanese. It was the beginning of the renewal of the U.S. “special relationship” with Japan that Theodore Roosevelt had established in 1905.

The U.S. befriended the enemy Japan and turned on their former Korean allies who had been fighting the Japanese for over 12 years. The U.S. military occupation government commanded by General John R. Hodge would be the military occupation government for the next 3 years.

In 1946 the Japanese administering southern Korea were replaced mostly with Koreans who had collaborated with the Japanese, and the yangban kept their lands. The U.S. feared that communism would take hold in liberated countries. It was the communists who had put up the biggest armed resistance in Asia against the Japanese during World War Two. The U.S. no longer needed or wanted them.

The scene in northern Korea was quite different. The Korean People’s Republic and their grassroots committees took over the government functions. The Japanese war criminals, collaborators, and yangban fled south where the U.S. welcomed them with open arms.

Within 3 years the Russians had pulled out all of their armed forces. The Russians had their own devastated country to rebuild, and they were more concerned about Eastern Europe, which was the historical invasion route to Russia.

The U.S.’s own intelligence had identified the desires of the Korean people. They wanted independence, self-government and land reform. Those were the antithesis of what the U.S. wanted for the Korean people. It was the U.S. that was scrambling all over the world to stem the tidal wave of anti-colonialism.

Kim il Sung was a national patriotic hero that had been fighting Japanese colonialism since the early 1930’s. If the U.S. had not blocked nationwide elections in Korea, he or another leftist reformer would have overwhelmingly won a fair election.

In the Moscow Conference of December, 1945 the U.S. and Russia agreed that Korea would be independent within 5 years after nationwide elections and that all foreign troops would withdraw.  Russia kept its end of the bargain.  The U.S. broke its promise.

Instead the U.S. rigged an election in the South, in which the Communist Party and leftist were not allowed to participate. Later the U.S. would use the same trick in South Vietnam, in order to keep that country divided too. Like Kim il Sung in Korea, Ho Chi Minh was a national hero and would have won in a fair nationwide election in Vietnam.

Turn to 1950. Military clashes had been a regular occurrence along Korea’s 38th parallel for 2 years, many of them initiated by the South. The 38th parallel was not recognized as an international border by either the U.S. puppet government in South Korea or the anti-colonial government in North Korea.

Korea was one country, and each side claimed to be the legitimate government of all of Korea. Therefore, the Korean War was not a war of aggression. There was no invasion of Korea by Koreans. The invaders were the U.S. which was subjugating the South, and backed a little-known transplant named Syngman Rhee, who had lived in the U.S. for forty years.

The Rhee dictatorship went on an anti-communist witch hunt that killed, imprisoned, tortured and disappeared hundreds of thousands of patriotic left-leaning Koreans in the South. Repressive dictatorships continued the persecution of dissidents for the next 40 years.

No one knows exactly what happened on the night of June 25, 1950; both sides said that the other side started the clash. The scenario that has become official U.S. legend raised many questions, most notably by the investigative journalist I. F. Stone in his book “The Hidden History of the Korean War (1950-1951)”.

For Kim il Sung and his compatriots the Korean War was an anti-colonial war. First he fought against the Japanese, just as Vietnam was fighting then against the French and their puppet government. To Kim il Sung, South Korea was a colonial puppet government of the US. The U.S. can be seen as the aggressor in both Vietnam and Korea.

The legal fig leaf of U.S. subjugation and the establishment of a puppet government in South Korea was a U.S. dominated United Nations-backed rigged election in the South. Communists were not allowed to participate so they boycotted it.

For the next 40 years South Korea was ruled by U.S. backed dictators Syngman Rhee, Park Chung-hee, Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo. If one wants to know who controls a country, then look at who controls the country’s military. South Korea’s military is still today under the wartime command of the US military.

Korea and Vietnam have many similarities. Both were invaded by colonial powers in the 1800’s. Would any historian today write something like: The Vietnam War started when the North Vietnamese attacked their French colonial occupiers? Would anybody say that The Vietnam War started in 1957 when Ho Chi Minh’s forces crossed the 17th parallel? South Vietnam, as was South Korea was ruled by a puppet government of the US.

Ho Chi Minh was a freedom fighter just as Kim il Sung was against the Japanese during World War Two. Both were fighting colonialism. The Vietnam War and the Korean War were wars against U.S. occupiers that had replaced colonial rule.

Neither North Korea nor South Korea recognized the 38th parallel as a border. As General MacArthur said when his armed forces crossed the 38th parallel on October 9, 1950, it was just an imaginary line.  MacArthur’s UN mandate was originally to repel the North Korean forces from South Korea. But MacArthur argued that the 38th parallel had no meaning and he ordered his army into one of the worst disasters in U.S. military history.

The Chinese had repeatedly warned that they would intervene if MacArthur crossed the 38th parallel. Had MacArthur heeded that warning it may have saved millions of lives, including tens of thousands of American lives.

When MacArthur’s forces reached the Yalu River separating Korea and China there were 300,000 Chinese volunteers and Koreans waiting in ambush. MacArthur’s forces had to run a bloody gauntlet at the Chosen Reservoir as they retreated back across the 38th parallel. The U.S. forces suffered over 15,000 casualties in that single battle.

*(Retreat from the Battle of the Chosen Reservoir)

The reunification of Vietnam, like Korea, was agreed to be settled by nationwide elections. As in Korea, the U.S. staged a phony election in South Vietnam and established the government of the Republic of Vietnam, under the puppet president Ngo Dinh Diem. Just as in Korea, the U.S. knew that if there were fair elections in Vietnam, then the Communist Party would win. So like in Korea, the U.S. staged a phony election in the south in which communists were not permitted to participate.

Article V, item 60 of the Korean Armistice Agreement of 1953 recommended that within 3 months a conference would be held by all sides of the Korean War. All sides were to “settle through negotiation the question of the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Korea, the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, etc. [sic]”.

The conference on Korea was held at the same Geneva Conference of 1954 that temporarily divided Vietnam. Nationwide elections in Vietnam were agreed to be held in 1956. No further agreement was reached on the “peaceful settlement of the Korean question”.

It was the US invasion of Korea in 1871, and Theodore Roosevelt’s betrayal that resulted in Korea being subjugated by Japan in 1905, and annexed in 1910. The U.S. caused much of the suffering, death and destruction of Korea for over a century, and a never ending war.

We cannot turn the clock back to March 1, 1919 when Woodrow Wilson made his 14 points speech that colonial people have a right to self-determination. Nor can we turn it back to 1948, and the promised independence for Korea.

What would help the peace process now in Korea is for the U.S. to get out of the way. All U.S. armed forces should be withdrawn from Korea, as they were supposed to have been in 1948. The US should stop bullying Koreans, stop meddling in the internal affairs of Korea, and let the Korean people settle their own destiny.


Reference and suggested reading

“Patriots, Traitors and Empires: The Story of Korea’s Struggle for Freedom”, by Stephen Gowans.

“Reflections on the Roots of U.S. Involvement in Korea”, by Chang Soon.

“Korea’s Place in the Sun: A Modern History”, by Bruce Cumings.

“The Hidden History of the Korean War (1950-1951)”, by I.F. Stone.



Posted in North Korea, South KoreaComments Off on What Would Help the Peace Process in Korea?

Palestine: Nazi court orders PA to compensate collaborators


Image result for Nazi court CARTOON

Nazi court has ordered the Palestinian Authority to compensate Palestinians detained by its security services over suspicions that they have collaborated with the occupation authorities, local media reported on Friday. According to the Times of ‘Israel’, the court has ordered the PA to pay a total of NIS13.2m ($3.5 million) in compensation to 52 collaborators.

The PA occasionally detains Palestinians in the occupied West Bank who are suspected of collaborating with the Nazi Gestapo. Zionist Hayom reported that five lawsuits involving dozens of plaintiffs have been filed against the authority over its crackdown on collaborators, noting that the oldest dates from 2004.

“We welcome the court’s landmark ruling,” said lawyers acting for the collaborators. “The judge saw the plaintiffs’ disabilities [resulting from torture], understood their distress and decided to grant them partial compensation immediately.”

The Palestinian Authority calls its own collaboration with the Nazi occupation authorities “security cooperation”. PA President Ab-A$$ has described this as “sacred”. Critics insist that the PA security services were created solely to protect Israel and its occupation, not the people of Palestine.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Palestine: Nazi court orders PA to compensate collaborators

LFL: Palestine refugees’ right to return is ‘extreme and illegitimate’


Image result for Labour Friends of Israel CARTOON

Labour Friends of Israel: Palestine refugees’ right to return is ‘extreme and illegitimate’


Westminster-based lobby group Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) has described the Palestinian refugees’ right of return as “extreme and illegitimate”, in a letter to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn this week.

LFI’s letter came in response to remarks made by the Leader of the opposition on 25 June, during a recent visit to Jordan. In a Twitter post, Corbyn wrote:

“In Jordan, I went to Baqa’a, one of the largest Palestinian refugee camps. We must work for a real two state settlement to the Israel-Palestine conflict, which ends the occupation and siege of Gaza and makes the Palestinian right to return a reality.”

In the period 1947-1949, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were expelled from or fled their homes as Zionist militias and the Israeli army destroyed hundreds of villages in what became Israel. Refugees attempting to return were killed, and Israel passed laws to expropriate their properties.

Corbyn’s expression of support for the Palestinian refugees’ internationally-recognised rights, prompted anger and concern from British pro-Israel groups, including LFI.

In a letter from LFI chair MP Joan Ryan, the pro-Israel group describes the Palestinians’ right to return (which is referred to in scare quotes) as “highly contentious”, and at odds with Israel’s insistence on retaining its Jewish majority of citizens.

Ryan added: “I do not believe that it does anything to encourage the compromises and concessions a future negotiated settlement will involve for foreign politicians to appear to endorse the most extreme and illegitimate demands of either side.”

The LFI chair concluded by urging Corbyn to “immediately clarify” what he understands by a right to return, and to only use “language… [that] helps to advance, not hinder, the cause of peace, reconciliation and coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians.”

A spokesperson for the Labour party said: “These rights are inalienable and guaranteed by UN Resolution 194 of 11 December 1948. How the right of return is implemented is a matter for the negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians.”


Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on LFL: Palestine refugees’ right to return is ‘extreme and illegitimate’

Washington’s Syrian Chess Game Leaves Iraqi Forces Battling ISIS Dead

Image result for Washington VS Syrian CARTOON
By Whitney Webb | Mint Press News |

Last Sunday, June 17, local Syrian media reported that the U.S. coalition had bombed Syrian Arab Army installments in the town of Al-Hariri. The bombing killed dozens of Syrian Arab Army (SAA) soldiers as well as 22 fighters from the Iraqi paramilitary group known as the Popular Mobilization Forces (Hashd al-Sha’abi, PMF), which has been collaborating with the Syrian government to wipe out Daesh (ISIS) fighters around the Syrian-Iraqi border city of Abu Kamal in the Deir Ez-Zor governorate.

Soon after the strike, however, the U.S. denied responsibility for the attack, with Pentagon spokesman Adrian Rankine-Galloway asserting that the bombing was “not a U.S. or coalition strike,” while an anonymous U.S. official told Agence France-Presse, and later CNN, that Israel had been responsible for the strike. Israel declined to comment on the allegations.

While Israel was widely blamed for the strike following those media reports, new evidence gathered by Iraq’s PMF from the site of the strike has shown that the attack may, in fact, have been carried out by the U.S. coalition. After collecting fragments of missiles used in the strike, the group – which is sponsored by the government of Iraq – determined that the U.S. had carried out the strike by firing missiles at the SAA/PMF position from a location near the Iraqi border city of Al-Qa’im. U.S. culpability for the attack would mean that it is the second time in less than a month that the U.S.-led coalition has attacked pro-government fighters targeting Daesh within Syria.

The head of PMF’s military operations, Abu Munather Al-Husseini, asserted that the U.S.-led Joint Operations Command (JOC), also known as the U.S. coalition, had been informed by the Iraqi military of the PMF’s location prior to the strike. Thus, if the PMF’s analysis of the strike site is indeed correct, the U.S. coalition had intentionally and deliberately targeted the PMF as well as the SAA in conducting the strike.

As MintPress reported soon after the attack, the strike was launched from U.S.-occupied territory, meaning that either the U.S.-led coalition conducted the attack but publicly denied responsibility, or that Israel was responsible for the attack and “independently” launched the strike from Syrian territory occupied by the U.S.-led coalition. The PMF’s analysis of the strike site has now determined that the former was most likely the case, given that the group had waited to point the finger at Israel or the U.S. until concluding its analysis of the attack.

PMF’s leadership lambasted the U.S. for allegedly carrying out the strike and targeting its forces, while also urging retaliation against the U.S. for repeatedly interfering in its efforts to wipe out Daesh in Syria as well as Iraq. Indeed, just days before the strike, the PMFhad successfully launched a major offensive against Daesh in the area of Syria where the strike later took place.

In a statement released on Sunday, PMF Deputy Commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis warned of retaliation against the U.S., stating:

We tell the Americans that we as the Hashd [PMF], including all of its formations, follow the Iraqi government. We will not remain silent about this attack. […] Remaining silent on this incident, saying that ‘that position is outside the Iraqi territory, hence we have nothing to do with it’ is forfeiting the blood of our martyrs.

U.S. chess game with ISIS as pawn

U.S.’ actions near Abu Kamal betray the fact that it is seeking to expand the portion of Syria’s Northeast that it currently occupies, an area that accounts for 30 percent of Syria’s total land mass and includes the majority of the country’s oil, gas, fresh water, and agricultural resources. The U.S. has long had its eye on the strategic border town, as it is the main border crossing between Syria and Iraq. More importantly, it is the only border crossing that connects Syrian government-controlled territory with Iran, through Iraq.

A major U.S. goal in its occupation of Syria has been disrupting this land bridge, but continued Syrian government control of Abu Kamal makes this impossible. Were the U.S. to take control of Abu Kamal, it would control Syria’s most important border crossings, as it already controls the Syrian-Jordanian border crossing at al-Tanf.

The U.S.’ interest in Abu Kamal and its recent targeting of forces fighting Daesh in the area suggest that a Daesh takeover of the city is likely to be used by the U.S. as the pretext for the expansion of Syrian territory, a tactic the U.S. has used before in Syria. The possibilities of a Daesh takeover of Abu Kamal have been openly noted by influential U.S. think tanks, such as the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), which recently mused that Daesh control over Abu Kamal would serve U.S. interests in the region, as it would allow the U.S.-occupied zone of Syria to “spread by osmosis.”

For that reason, the recent reappearance of Daesh (ISIS) in Abu Kamal is significant. Indeed, Daesh launched its largest military offensive in several months in Abu Kamal earlier this month, with 10 suicide bombers helping clear the way for Daesh militants to take over parts of the city. The offensive killed 25 Syrian soldiers and allied fighters, according to monitors. Daesh attacked from the U.S.-occupied zone of Syria, despite the fact that the U.S. has long justified its illegal presence in Syria by claiming that it is fighting the terror group. However, Russian and Syrian military sources have asserted that the U.S. is not fighting Daesh in the region, but protecting them.

The strikes on pro-Syrian government forces around Abu Kamal also come amid reports that indicate the U.S. is fortifying its military positions within occupied Syria by constructing military bases along the Euphrates river in proximity to Syrian military installments throughout the Deir Ez-Zor region and by transferring “a large volume of arms and equipment, including missiles, military vehicles and bridge equipment” to those same areas in recent weeks.

Given that the U.S. may soon lose its influence in Southern Syria and its control over the al-Tanf border crossing, thanks to the Syrian government’s offensive in the Dara’a governorate, it is likely the U.S. will continue to fortify its position in the country’s Northeast and expand its efforts to dislodge the SAA and its allies from Abu Kamal in a last-ditch attempt to prolong the conflict and succeed in its efforts to occupy and partition Syria.

Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News and a contributor to Ben Swann’s Truth in Media. Her work has appeared on Global Research, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has also made radio and TV appearances on RT and Sputnik. She currently lives with her family in southern Chile.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Washington’s Syrian Chess Game Leaves Iraqi Forces Battling ISIS Dead

Zionist regime to ‘Prolong Bloodshed’ in Syria as Media Pushes ‘Sensational’ Iran Claims


Image result for Zionist ‘Prolong Bloodshed’ in Syria CARTOON

With two Israeli missile having struck targets near a Syrian airport on Tuesday, Rick Sterling, an investigative journalist and member of the Syria Solidarity Movement, told Sputnik that the likelihood of Israel backing down from its attacks are pretty slim.

As Sputnik previously reported, the Israeli Air Force was attempting a late night attack on an Iranian cargo plane that was unloading at Damascus International Airport. Footage has since emerged allegedly showing the aftermath of the Israeli strike.

The incident follows multiple strikes by Israel in recent months in what it calls “retaliatory” measures against Iran’s presence in Syria, which it sees as a threat to its safety. Iran has had a foothold in Syria since the conflict first began in 2011.

​Sterling told Radio Sputnik’s Loud & Clear on Tuesday that the missile launch proved that Israel has no intention of helping solve the Syrian conflict, but instead hopes to keep the fight going.

“I think Israel is continuing to provoke the situation,” Sterling told show host Walter Smolarek. “They don’t want to see the conflict end, they want to prolong the bloodshed there and prevent the Syrian government from finally defeating terrorism there in Syria.”

“They’ve acted for many years now as a protectorate of the terrorist groups… they’ve been actively involved in the conflict from the get-go… they’ve medically treated terrorists inside Israel and with [Israeli Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu going along bedsides, with videos showing him greeting medically treated extremists,” Sterling pointed out.

Highlighting Israel’s love of proclaiming Iran as a threat, the journalist stressed that the 70-year-old country has repeatedly cried wolf on the matter.

“Israel uses Iran as a pretext… they always claim that they’re attacking armaments headed for Hezbollah or armaments from Iran or Iranian contingents,” he told Smolarek. “They’ve exaggerated the Iranian participation in the conflict from the start.”

“It is a dangerous situation right now. We don’t know what the calculations in Israel are and it’s pretty hard to predict what the US is going to do — there’s competing wishes within the US military, CIA and the national security establishment,” Sterling noted.

Predicting the media coverage to come on the matter, Sterling suggested outlets would ultimately create “sensational claims and fears about civilians being attacked and civilians being targets and very horrible events about to happen.”

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, SyriaComments Off on Zionist regime to ‘Prolong Bloodshed’ in Syria as Media Pushes ‘Sensational’ Iran Claims

Venezuela Criticizes ‘Politicized’ UN Human Rights Report

Image result for Venezuela AMBASSADOR CPGB-ML UK PHOTO

The Venezuelan government has criticized a United Nations human rights report on the Latin American nation as “lacking technical rigour and objectivity.”

“Venezuela categorically rejects the report regarding the alleged human rights situation in the country, published by the Office of United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, as a result of a highly questionable methodology that buries the credibility and technical rigor demanded of an office of this nature, and violates the principles of objectivity, impartiality and non-selectivity,” a statement released by the Ministry of Foreign Relations said.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and Jordanian prince, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, said Friday that “rule of law is virtually absent in Venezuela,” after a report was published citing “shocking” accounts of alleged extrajudicial killings by state forces.

The Venezuelan government responded that “Mr Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein confirms his complicity with the multiform aggression that is underway against Venezuela, keeping silent in the face of the negative impact on the enjoyment of economic, social, and cultural rights created by coercive, unilateral measures imposed by the United States of America and its servile allies in the region.”

The statement also pointed out that all official information provided by the Venezuelan government has been excluded from the report, “in order to build a grotesque media farce on this matter.”

The Foreign Ministry “reiterates its inescapable commitment to human rights” and its “willingness to continue cooperating with the organs of the United Nations system on issues of human rights, provided that the sovereignty of the country is respected and that it acts in accordance with rigour and truth.”

UN independent expert and Rapporteur, Alfred de Zayas, who himself was in Venezuela compiling data on human rights last year, described the report as lacking objectivity and neutrality.

“My worry is the credibility of the office when it shows no neutrality nor objectivity,” he stated following the release of the report.

Much of the report referred to the State’s reaction to the 2014 and 2017 right wing violent street protests, and the Operation of People’s Liberation (OLP) crime operatives which were temporarily held during 2017.

Venezuela’s Jose Vicente Rangel, who served as vice president under Hugo Chavez and now has a popular weekly TV show, warned of police abuses back in April, highlighting “operations that police groups are carrying out, operations that involve outrages against citizens and numerous cases of murder in the barrios.”

He alleged that the suspended OLP ops were being continued extra-officially by the FAES special police forces.

Posted in VenezuelaComments Off on Venezuela Criticizes ‘Politicized’ UN Human Rights Report

Ayatollah Khamenei slams West’s ‘shameless’ human rights posture

Image result for Ayatollah Khamenei CARTOON
Press TV 

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has strongly denounced the Western states for their pretense of advocating human rights while in reality supporting terrorist groups and acts of terror.

Addressing the staff of Iran’s Judiciary at a meeting in Tehran on Wednesday, Ayatollah Khamenei made reference to human rights violations committed by the United States in various parts of the world as well as France and Britain’s crimes of the past decades which took place in Africa and the Indian subcontinent.

The Leader added that the West’s support over the past years for the Daesh terror group in Syria and the atrocities being committed in Myanmar and elsewhere “is indicative of the repeated lies of the shameless fake human rights advocates.”

Ayatollah Khamenei said when it comes to the issue of human rights, it is actually the Islamic Republic that stands in the position of the true advocate of human rights as opposed to “the criminal Western pretenders.”

The Leader expressed satisfaction with the Judiciary’s work in restoring the Iranian nations’ rights in the face of bullying powers.

Separately, Ayatollah Khamenei advised the judicial officials to work closely with the government towards resolving the country’s economic problems.

‘Systemic corruption a lie’

The Leader criticized certain people who seek to create the impression among the public that there is “systemic corruption” within Iranian state institutions.

Corruption does exist in a number of governmental and commercial enterprises, “but the existence of systemic corruption is not true,” the Leader said. “This wrong impression should not be allowed to affect the public opinion.”

Ayatollah Khamenei further stated that foreign enemies and certain oblivious elements at home have made the Judiciary the target of the most severe propaganda and media pressure.

In order to effectively confront this massive propaganda campaign, the Leader suggested, the judicial system needs to develop a strong and skillful media arm.

Posted in USA, IranComments Off on Ayatollah Khamenei slams West’s ‘shameless’ human rights posture

Arabs And Zionist: Conflict Or Conciliation ‘Video’

Sheikh Ahmed Deedat Books:

Is the Bible God’s Word?

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Arabs And Zionist: Conflict Or Conciliation ‘Video’

Refocus on Pakistan-India Water Dispute


Image result for Pakistan-India Water Dispute CARTOON
By Sajjad Shaukat
Since its inception, India has never missed an opportunity to victimise Pakistan by creating
deliberate water scarcity with the aim to damage the latter agriculturally. Last year, Indian
extremist Prime Minister Narendra Modi had given the concerned departments to continue
construction of dams and ordered diverting water of Chenab River to Beas, which is a serious
violation of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) of 1960. Therefore, Pakistan-India water dispute has
been deepened.

In this regard, a high-powered Pakistani delegation led by Pakistan ‘s Attorney General Ashtar
Ausaf Ali met with World Bank Chief Executive Officer Kristalina Georgieva and other senior
officials in Washington on May 21-22, 2018 for resolution of disputes on Kishanganga Hydro
Electric Power (KHEP) and Rampur Hydro Electric Power (RHEP). World Bank’s, senior vice
president and Group General Counsel has forwarded a letter to Ashtar Ausaf Ali. The letter
contains a summary of ideas to resolve the stalemate and proffers two proposals for which
concerned authorities (MoWR/AGP) will shortly convene a meeting to finalize Pakistan's
proposals—Proposal 1: Pakistan accepts Indian request to appoint neutral Expert (NE) and
Proposal 2: India accepts Pakistan’s request for emplacement of Court of Arbitration (COA).
The World Bank is working with Pakistan and India to resolve Pakistan-India disputes on
Kishanganga Hydro Electric Power (KHEP) and Rampur Hydro Electric Power (RHEP) in light
of the provisions of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT).

A statement of the World Bank said: “The delegation of the Government of Pakistan also shared
with the Bank their concerns about the recent inauguration of the Kishanganga hydroelectric
plant” and the World Bank assured that it will address Islamabad’s concerns regarding Indian
violations of the IWT.

But, quite contrary to the above, it has been observed that a deliberate and sustained dis-
information campaign has been launched on both print and electronic media of India that
Pakistan has lost its case of water dispute at international forum i.e. World Bank.
It is notable that in the recent past, Prime Ministeri had inaugurated the 330MW Kishanganga
hydroelectric project in Jammu and Kashmir. Islamabad had protested the inauguration, claiming
that the project on a river flowing into Pakistan will disrupt water supplies.

It is mentionable that Pakistan is a grave victim of water scarcity, because of being on lower
riparian in relation to the rivers emanating from the Indian-Held Kashmir (IHK). New Delhi is
creating deliberate water shortages for Pakistan with the aim to impair Pakistan agriculturally.
Historically, India has been trying to establish her hegemony in the region by controlling water
sources and damaging agricultural economies of her neighbouring states. India has water
disputes with Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh. Under the extremist government of Prime
Minister Modi, Pakistan has become specially target, as India’s water terrorism continues

In this respect, in an article, Zofeen T. Ebrahim, Joydeep Gupta (Co-Authors) under the caption,
“India resists World Bank move to resolve Indus Water Treaty dispute”, published in The Third
Pole and reproduced-updated by a Pakistan’s renowned daily on January 6, 2017 is notable.
Zofeen T. Ebrahim and Joydeep Gupta wrote, “India has asked the World Bank not to rush in to
resolve a dispute with Pakistan over the Kishanganga and Ratle hydropower projects. Indian
officials told a World Bank representative in New Delhi on January 5 that any differences over
the projects can be resolved bilaterally or through a neutral expert. Pakistan has objected to the
projects–being built by India in Jammu and Kashmir–on the grounds that they violate the 1960
Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) between the two countries. After India rejected the charge, Pakistan
has gone to the World Bank–the designated IWT mediator…Islamabad has also asked the United
States (US) government to intervene, and has added the component of water security to the
China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) agreement…The Kishanganga project is on a
tributary of the Jhelum, while the Ratle project is on the Chenab..”

Zofeen T. Ebrahim and Joydeep Gupta elaborated, “As the dispute flared up, the World Bank
had recently suspended all proceedings–the setting up of a court of arbitration or the appointment
of a neutral expert. On January 5, World Bank representative Ian H Solomon met officials of
India’s External Affairs and Water Resources ministries in New Delhi in an effort to break the
deadlock. The Indian delegation, led by Gopal Baglay, Joint secretary in the Ministry of External
Affairs, made a detailed a presentation on the two projects to support their argument that neither
project violated the IWT. After the meeting, a government official told journalists that the Indian
side had described the objections raised by Pakistan as “technical”, and therefore they would be
best resolved by a neutral expert…Pakistan has dismissed this suggestion earlier, and is seeking
a full court of arbitration.

The World Bank had agreed to a court of arbitration and then to the
appointment of a neutral expert, leading to objections by both countries. That was when both
processes were suspended. Explore: World Bank pauses dam arbitration to ‘protect Indus Waters
Treaty.’ At the January 5 meeting, Solomon did not raise any question on the designs of the two
projects, according to the Press Trust of India news agency. Instead, he explored ways to resolve
the dispute. With nothing decided, the World Bank official is going from New Delhi to
Islamabad to continue this effort…Under the IWT, India is allowed only non-consumptive use of
water from the three western rivers in the Indus basin–Indus, Jhelum and Chenab…The recent
stance by India where it “lobbied aggressively and influenced” the World Bank, he feared, had
further undermined the already “fragile” treaty. “The WB needs to take the right action–which is
to act as arbitrator in this matter, as it has done before,” pointed out water expert Simi
Kamal…The Bank needs to maintain this role and not back off now, when its arbitration role is
most required in the face of a belligerent Indian government.”

In fact, New Delhi’s construction of several dams and new plans for more dams in the Indian
Occupied Kashmir is part of its most dangerous scheme of bloodless warfare, being conducted
against Islamabad in order to further harm all political, economic, financial and social spheres of

In this connection, in March, 2011, speaking in diplomatic language, Indus Water Commissioner
of India G. Ranganathan denied that India’s decision to build dams on rivers led to water
shortage in Pakistan. He also rejected Islamabad’s concerns at water theft by New Delhi or

violation of the Indus Water Treaty of 1960, assuring his counterpart, Syed Jamaat Ali Shah that
all issues relating to water would be resolved through dialogue. However, ground realties are
quite different from what Ranganathan maintained.
Besides other permanent issues and, especially the dispute of Kashmir which has always been
used by India to malign and pressurize Pakistan, water of rivers has become a matter of life and
death for every Pakistani, as New Delhi has been employing it as a tool of terrorism to blackmail

In this regard, Indian decision to construct two hydro-electric projects on River Neelam which is
called Krishanganga is a blatant violation of the Indus Basin Water Treaty. The World Bank,
itself, is the mediator and signatory for the treaty. After the partition, owing to war-like situation,
India deliberately stopped the flow of Pakistan’s rivers which originate from the Indian-Held
Kashmir. Even at that time, Indian rulers had used water as a tool of aggression against Pakistan.
However, due to Indian illogical stand, Islamabad sought the help of international arbitration.
The Indus Basin Treaty allocates waters of three western rivers of Indus, Jhelum and Chenab to
Pakistan, while India has rights over eastern rivers of Ravi, Sutlej and Beas.
Since the settlement of the dispute, India has always violated the treaty intermittently to create
economic crisis in Pakistan. In 1984, India began construction of the Wullar Barrage on river
Jhelum in the Indian Occupied Kashmir.

In the past, the issue of Wullar Barrage has also been discussed in various rounds of talks, being
held under composite dialogue process between the two rivals, but Indian intransigence has
continued. In the mid-1990s India started another violation by constructing the Baglihar dam on
the Chenab River. In 2005, Pakistan had again sought the World Bank’s help to stop construction
of the Baglihar dam. Although WB allowed India to go ahead with the project after a few
modifications, yet it did not permit the interruption of the agreed quota of water flow to Pakistan.
In 2008, India suddenly reduced water flow of the Chenab River to give a greater setback to
Pakistan’s autumnal crops. Islamabad on September 17, 2008 threatened to seek the World
Bank’s intervention on the plea that New Delhi had not responded to its repeated complaints on
the issue appropriately. But, India did nothing to address the problem.

It is mentionable that India had been using water as an instrument to pressurize Islamabad with a
view to getting leverage in the Pak-India dialogue especially regarding Indian-Held Kashmir
where a new phase of protests against the Indian illegitimate occupation has accelerated. In this
respect, the then Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi had said on February 8, 2010 that
Pakistan’s case on Kashmir and water was based on truth, and the government would fight it
with full strength.

As a matter of fact, New Delhi wants to keep its control on Kashmir which is located in the Indus
River basin area, and which contributes to the flow of all the major rivers, entering Pakistan. It is
determined to bring about political, economic and social problems of grave nature in Pakistan.

In this context, China Daily News Group wrote in 2005: “Another added complication is that in
building a dam upstream of Pakistan, India will possess the ability to flood or starve Pakistan at
will. This ability was witnessed in July of 2004 when India, without warning, released water into
the Chenab River, flooding large portions of Pakistan. The history of conflict between these two
nations makes it possible for New Delhi to use nature as a real weapon against Islamabad.”
According to an estimate, unlike India, Pakistan is highly dependent on agriculture, which in turn
is dependent on water. Of the 79.6 million hectares of land that makeup Pakistan, 20 million are
available for agriculture. Of those 20 million hectares, 16 million are dependent on irrigation. So,
almost 80% of Pakistan’s agriculture is dependent on irrigation.

Notably, many of Pakistan’s industries are agro-based such as the textiles industry. Besides, 80%
of Pakistan’s food needs are fulfilled domestically. Thus an interruption of water supply would
have broad-ranging effects. For example, when the country suffered a drought from 1998 to
2001, there were violent riots in Karachi.

It is noteworthy that half of Pakistan’s energy comes from hydroelectricity, and at present, our
country has been facing a severe crisis of loadshedding which is the result of power-shortage in
the country. During the recent past summers, people in a number of cities like Karachi, Lahore,
Multan, Faisalabad etc. lodged violent protests against the loadshedding, culminating into loss of
property and life.

It is of particular attention that the then Pakistan’s Federal Minister for Water and Power
Khawaja Asif had warned on February 10, 2015 that although the electricity shortage in the
country would be overcome within two to three years, the scarcity of water is another issue
looming in the country.

Nevertheless, New Delhi employs water as an instrument by increasing its scarcity, making life
too often miserable for Pakistanis with the ultimate aim of creating poverty which could produce
more terrorism in turn. And, India is likely to deepen differences among Pakistan’s provinces
over various issues which are directly or indirectly related to water.
It is worth-mentioning that in January, 2017, even the US administration has initiated the process
for peacefully resolving the water dispute between India and Pakistan—the latest dispute which
concerns two hydroelectric power plants—Kishanganga and Ratle, which India is building on the
Indus rivers system.

In this backdrop, after a pause of two years and ‘water war threats’ from the Indian Prime
Minister Modi, Pakistan and India on March 20, 2017 resumed talks in Islamabad over the water
issues with Pakistan welcoming the development, but vowing to defend its rights with ‘full zeal
and vigour’. The two-day talks of Indus water commissioners of the two countries marked the
first formal engagement between the arch rivals, during the Mod-led India. Under the Indus
Waters Treaty, New Delhi is bound to hold such meetings with Islamabad. Notably, last year,
Premier Modi had threatened to revoke the water accord with Pakistan.

Nonetheless, after the latest meeting with the Pakistani delegation, we should hope that the
World Bank will resolve the Pakistan-India water dispute, particularly regarding the issue of
Kishanganga Hydro Electric Power and Rampur Hydro Electric Power projects.

Posted in India, Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on Refocus on Pakistan-India Water Dispute

Shoah’s pages